Whereas H.R. 1792 authorizes annual federal contributions for operating expenses above the grants under Section 5 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1974, which is an equitable reflection of the federal government's special relationship to this area's transit system; and Whereas the completion and operation of the Metrorail System is essential for efficient transportation for the Nation's Capital and for reduction of air pollution in the Washington Metropolitan Area, both matters of important concern to the Federal Government: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the City of Falls Church urges passage of H.R. 1792 to authorize additional federal contributions for the cost of construction of the 101 mile rapid transit system, and to provide an authorization for the retirement of WMATA revenue bonds, and to provide an authorization for an annual Federal payment to WMATA beyond the Section 5 grants for Metro operations. Adopted March 12, 1979. Hon. FORTNEY H. STARK, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VA., Subcommittee on Metropolitan Affairs, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN STARK: I am pleased to respond to your letter of April 24, 1979, inviting me to testify for the record on your bill, H.R. 3634, to provide additional financial assistance in support of the construction and operations of the Washington Metropolitan Area rapid rail system. I would first like to emphasize that Arlington County is deeply committed to the regional Metrorail and Metrobus systems. Arlington residents are using the system quite heavily today and are looking forward to the opening of Phase IV late this year, when an additional four stations will become operational in Arlington. Regarding the current bill before the Subcommittee on Metropolitan Affairs, I would like to briefly make five points: First, I believe we all recognize that this metropolitan area has a special relationship with the Federal Government not shared by any other area of the nation. This area is the center of Federal Government; and as a consequence, the U. S. Government is the largest employer in the area. Many of the services provided at the local level are provided for the direct benefit of Federal employees. The regional transit system is but one example. The U. S. Congress recognized this special relationship many years ago when it financed the beginnings of what is now a working rapid rail system, which is operating extremely well to bring Federal employees to and from work each day. This special relationship is reflected by elements of your proposed legislation which provides capital and operating assistance to the Metrorail system. Second, with regard to the proposed capital assistance beginning in fiscal year 1982, we support its passage. We all recognize that more money, than was originally contemplated, will be needed to complete the system. The additional funds which would be authorized by this legislation will, if inflation can be controlled nationally, enable us to complete the 100-mile rail system. It would be advantageous if the level of funding could be increased to $350,000,000 annually to enable the system to be completed earlier than would be possible with the proposed $275,000,000 and closer to the schedule contained in the adopted regional construction and financial plan. Third, we support the Federal assistance in paying principal and interest on the revenue bonds and the authorization for higher payments in the early years to relieve the local burden of these payments at the same time local jurisdictions are providing capital funds to match the Federal contributions. Fourth, we believe the additional assistance toward operating subsidies, beginning at $20,000,000 and growing annually, fully recognizes the special relationship that the Federal Government has with this metropolitan area. This operating assistance will relieve the local jurisdictions of some of the burden of continuing to finance a growing system with the local property tax. This brings me to my fifth and final point, that of the dedicated tax requirement by September 30, 1980. This element of the legislation gives us grave concern. Arlington County is not authorized by State law to create a dedicated tax to support Metro with the exception of a small part of the vehicle registration fee, which amounts to about $500,000 annually. This portion of the vehicle registration is dedicated to transit purposes. We have also attempted, at the last three meetings of the General Assembly in Richmond, to obtain for assistance to transit, an extra one cent on the sales tax or four percent surcharge to the gasoline purchase. Two years ago, the sales tax measure failed by one vote in the House. I do not believe it possible for us to accomplish a dedicated tax since, to date, most legislators in the Virginia General Assembly have not been responsive to our intense efforts to obtain one. We have paid all our obligations to the transit system, to date, and intend to continue to fund our obligations in the future. I believe it would be best to recognize that local jurisdictions are not free to establish a dedicated tax, and I would encourage this portion of the legislation be dropped. We will continue to pay our Metro obligation for both the bus and rail systems. I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony and look forward to the passage of H.R. 3634 in a somewhat modified version as suggested. Sincerely, Hon. FORTNEY H. STARK, DOROTHY T. GROTOS, Chairman, Arlington County Board. Chairman, Subcommittee on Metropolitan Affairs, COUNTY OF Fairfax, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN STARK: In response to your letter to me dated April 24, 1979 requesting written testimony on H.R. 3634 and H.R. 1792, this is to advise you that the Board of Supervisors approved the attached testimony at their May 7, 1979 meeting. Your office was earlier advised that we would not be able to meet the May 4, 1979 date for submittal of comments due to our receiving your Bill quite late in the process. It is requested that this testimony of the Board of Supervisors be entered into the record and further that this testimony be provided to the Committee which now has both Bills. I am also sending a copy of this testimony to Congressman Harris. We appreciate your assistance and endeavor in the important and significant legislation needed for funding the metrorail system. Sincerely, Attachment. JOHN F. HERRITY. TESTIMONY OF THE FAIRFAX COUNTY Board of SUPERVISORS AS FILED The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors appreciates the opportunity provided by the Subcommittee on Metropolitan Affairs of the Committee on the District of Columbia of the U.S. House of Representatives to review and provide comments on H.R. 1792 and H.R. 3634 which are bills introduced by Congressman Harris and Congressman Stark respectively concerning funding for the Metrorail system. It is requested that this testimony be introduced into the record of the hearings on these bills by the Subcommittee and that the Committee mark-up of these bills consider our comments. The Board of Supervisors previously endorsed H.R. 1792 by adopting the attached resolution on March 12, 1979. At the time the Board adopted this resolution, H.R. 1792 which was introduced by Congressman Harris was the only bill that would provide for funding of Metrorail capital, operating, and revenue bond debt service needs in a manner consistent with the financial plan that had been prepared by this region and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and which has been submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Our review of H.R. 3634, which was recently introduced by Congressman Stark indicates that H.R. 3634 and its provisions are generally consistent with the various elements embodied in the financial plan, which was endorsed by all the local jurisdictions that are part of the WMATA Compact. The Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County strongly endorse both these bills to the extent that the funding levels prescribed therein would enable completion of the full Metrorail system at the earliest possible time and in keeping with the good faith that has been reflected by all local jurisdictions in continuing to participate in this endeavor which was originally initiated as a cooperative venture between this region and the Federal Government. The Board further supports these bills in the sense that it amends the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 which Act recognized the special relationship between the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, the Federal Government, and the Congress of the United States and led to the original funding for the Metrorail system as a separate element and a separate program from funding for other similar programs in the rest of the Country. The system and its early completion has been supported by all the administrations since the inception of this program and it is essential that such support and enthusiasm be continued by legislation that would provide the additional federal funds that are needed to complete the system. With increasing gasoline prices and the potential for gasoline shortages, it is more important than ever for the Congress of the United States to ensure that funds at the level and the schedule prescribed in H.R. 1792 and H.R. 3634 are available so that this essential regional program can continue. A major difference between H.R. 1792 and H.R. 3634 is in the area of a dedicated source of revenue. H.R. 3634 would provide additional federal funds for construction and operations contingent on the participating local jurisdictions having a dedicated source of revenue for contributions to rail operating expenses. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has strongly endorsed such a dedicated source of revenue and during the 1978 and 1979 sessions of the Virginia General Assembly aggressively sought in cooperation with other Virginia jurisdictions the enactment of legislation that would enable us to have a one cent add-on sales tax that would provide revenues toward meeting the operating subsidy. Despite an aggressive campaign on the part of Northern Virginia legislators, attempts during both years failed and no legislation was enacted. Fairfax County, on its own, does not have the authority to guarantee an additional dedicated source of revenue that would meet the requirements to this effect that have been requested by the Federal Government and are also stated in HR 3634. The only source of revenue that Fairfax County has at its discretion is the real estate property tax and we recognize that the property tax can not continue to bear the entire burden of Metro related operating subsidies. It was with this in mind that Fairfax County was totally in support of legislation that would have shifted the burden of operating subsidies from the property tax to the sales tax. To the extent that this measure did not pass during the last two sessions of the Virginia General Assembly, we could not support a funding bill that conditions the receipt of capital funds on having such a source of revenue in place. That decision is not ours and is a commitment that cannot be made by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. We would further state that a delay in receipt of funds for capital construction because a dedicated source of revenue is not in place would only delay completion of the system and increase its costs due to inflation. As far as the cooperation and the continued good faith of Fairfax County in this endeavor, the Committee should note that Fairfax County as well as other jurisdictions have to date met all obligations or requests for funding that were made by Metro of us. Fairfax County has contributed its originally allocated share of the capital cost which was authorized by a bond referendum in 1969. We have paid over additional amounts towards funding the completion of 60-miles of this 100-mile system. During two different fiscal years Fairfax County had included in its budget our share of Metro revenue bond debt service, even though these amounts were later deleted because the local share of such debt service was accomplished through other funding sources. We have paid in a timely manner and when due all bills from WMATĂ to us for rail and bus operating subsidies. In essence, Fairfax County has supported this system since its inception and has never failed to deliver on a request for funds needed to construct or operate various segments. It would be detrimental in the overall context if the needed funds are authorized by Congress and then withheld or not released pending all jurisdictions having a dedicated source of revenue in place. This would merely increase the total cost of the system and delay its availability to the residents in the Metropolitan area. In concluding, it is the position of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors that the funding levels in both bills are consistent with the financial plan and would enable completion of the system in a timely manner. We do want the Committee to closely consider the potential impact of delays in approving federal funds for this system contingent on the enactment of a dedicated source of revenue. We believe that the funding of this system through federal legislation is important and crucial to the completion of a project that initially started in an environment of close federal and local participation. We also would suggest that the Committee review the record of all jurisdictions in this Metropolitan area and see for themselves the good faith that has been exercised by all jurisdictions in meeting their legal and other obligations to WMATA. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors believe that such a review on the part of the Committee will provide the necessary basis and justification for amending the language in Section 16 and Section 17 of Ĥ.R. 3634 so that the approval of federal funds for the Metrorail system will not be so strongly conditional on having a dedicated source of revenue. We, however, do urge the Sub committee to move forward with this important piece of legislation so that it can go forward to the full Committee and to the House for approval and enactment for this important program. At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Fairfax County, Virginia, held in the Board Room in the Massey Building at Fairfax, Virginia, on Monday, March 12, 1979, at which meeting a quorum was present and voting, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 provided for federal payments to assist in the construction of a rapid rail transit system for the Metropolitan Washington area; and WHEREAS the local governments have completed an analysis of alternatives to unbuilt segments of the system and agreed upon a preferred regional system; and WHEREAS a financial analysis of this system has been performed, to produce estimates of funding requirements for construction, operating subsidies, and debt service payments, showing both the estimated amount and proposed source of these funds: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors endorses H.R. 1792 which provides for federal funding for capital, operating and revenue bond associated costs in a manner consistent with the assumptions in the financial plan; and be it further Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors supports the provision in H.R. 1792 which prescribes that the appropriation of federal capital funds shall be in addition to funds made available from sources such as the interstate highway program, the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973; and be it further Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors supports the provision in H.R. 1792 which prescribes additional and continued federal operating assistance, such assistance to be in addition to that provided pursuant to other federal laws; and be it further Resolved, That with regard to Section 15(b)(2) and Section 15 (c)(2) which reference the payments to be made by local jurisdictions, Fairfax County's support of the arrangement for funding principal and interest on WMATA's revenue bonds does not imply that H.R. 1792, if it becomes federal law, obligates the County to a long term indebtedness since such indebtedness can be incurred only through authority obtained by an approved bond referendum; and be it further Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors requests that the United States Senate and House of Representatives take appropriately prompt legislative action to achieve the federal financial participation envisioned in the financial analysis, and requested in this resolution. A Copy Teste: CATHERINE A. GRIBOH, (for Ethel Wilcox Register), Clerk to the Board. Mr. STARK. Thank you very much. I hope that with your help and the help of your able representatives on this committee that we can conclude this to your satisfaction. Ms. TRAVESKY. Thank you, and I would like to offer our assistance. If there are any technical questions that you would like to ask, we will be happy to answer them in writing. Mr. STARK. Thank you very much. MS. TRAVESKY. Thank you. Mr. STARK. The committee will stand recessed until 9:30 tomorrow morning. [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee on Metropolitan Affairs hearing recessed until 9:30 a.m., May 2, 1979.] SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING ON H.R. 3634 AND H.R. 1792 TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1979 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON METROPOLITAN AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth Building, Hon. Fortney H. (Pete) Stark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Stark and Harris. Also present: Rod W. Kuckro, subcommittee staff assistant; Elizabeth D. Lunsford, general counsel; James T. Clark, legislative counsel; Dietra Gerald, staff assistant; Harry M. Singleton, deputy minority counsel; and Barbara Norris-Chaves, minority research analyst. Mr. STARK. The Subcommittee on Metropolitan Affairs of the House Committee on the District of Columbia will continue our hearings on H.R. 3634 and H.R. 1792. We are honored to have to testify before us this morning Secretary Mortimer L. Downey, III, Assistant Secrety for Budget and Programs for the U.S. Department of Transportation. Good morning, Mr. Downey. I think we have a copy of your prepared statement. You may read it, or we will include it in the record without objection, and you may proceed in any manner you wish. If you would like to identify the gentleman accompanying you, we may begin. STATEMENT OF MORTIMER L. DOWNEY III, ASSISTANT Mr. DOWNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Mr. John Taylor, who is the Associate Administrator for Transit Assistance of the Urban Mass Transit Administration. Since you have inserted my full statement for the record, I will summarize some of the highlights, skip over some of the history which I know you and Mr. Harris are well familiar with, which recounts the legislation and the various financial input that has led up to the current point. [The prepared statement of Mortimer L. Downey III, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, follows: (73) |